JUDGMENT : 1. The present appellant, who was the original respondent No.2 in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.268 of 1999 preferred by the original claimant – opponent No.1, has challenged the impugned judgment and award dated 20th September, 2007 passed by the Tribunal awarding compensation of Rs.3,27,400/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. The appellant has challenged the impugned award before this Court by filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. Short facts of the present case may be summarized as under: 2.1 In the claim petition preferred by the applicant, she has averred that on 25th October, 1998, she intended to meet Shri Chimanbhai Somabhai, therefore she had left her home for going to village Gambhira and on 26th October, 1998 she was returning from Gambhira and reached at village Mahuvad in motor vehicle and was standing nearby the road and waiting for the vehicle, meanwhile, the opponent No.1 came driving his tempo, bearing Registration No.GJ-6-W-6482 rashly and negligently and in a wrong side and dashed with the applicant where she was standing, as a result of which, she sustained severe injuries on her left hand and immediately she was shifted to SSG Hospital and her left hand was amputated. That, she was unconscious for a considerable period. That, this accident was occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of opponent No.1. She has further averred in her claim petition that she was 35 years of age at the time of accident, and due to amputation of her left hand she was an indoor patient for a period of more than 1 month in the SSG Hospital. She had two children and by selling the flowers she was earning Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month. That, her business was stopped on account of amputation of left hand and she has no any option to continue her business. That, she had incurred an amount of Rs.25,000/- for her medical treatment and Rs.10,000/- for transportation, she had suffered great mental shock and pain, and therefore, on all counts she had requested to pass an award of Rs.10,95,000/- along with interest. That, she had incurred an amount of Rs.25,000/- for her medical treatment and Rs.10,000/- for transportation, she had suffered great mental shock and pain, and therefore, on all counts she had requested to pass an award of Rs.10,95,000/- along with interest. 2.2 On receiving the notice issued by the Tribunal, the opponent No.1 appeared before the Tribunal and filed written statement vide Exhibit 28 denying the contents of the petition filed by the applicant. It was denied that motor vehicle tempo, bearing Registration No.GJ-6-W-6482, under the ownership of this opponent was involved in the accident. The age of the applicant, her income, injuries sustained by her, manner of accident, rash and negligent driving of the opponent No.1, treatment taken in the SSG Hospital, medical expenses incurred by her, were not admitted by this opponent. As per his contentions, after a week from the date of accident, he was falsely involved in the police case and false claim petition was filed by the applicant. It was contended that at the time of accident, the motor vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited of Alkapuri Baroda Branch and the risk of the motor vehicle was covered from 12th June, 1998 to 11th June, 1999. Hence, it was requested by this opponent to dismiss the claim petition. 2.3 The opponent No.2 filed its written statement Exhibit 48 denying the contents of the claim petition as false and not true. This opponent has also denied the income of the applicant of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- per month, injuries received by her in a motor vehicular accident allegedly taken place on 26th October, 1998 at the place and time, involvement of the vehicle i.e. tempo, bearing Registration No.GJ-6-W-6482, any negligency on the part of the driver of the motor vehicle, treatment taken by the applicant in SSG Hospital, amputation of left hand etc. It was contended that different Registration number of the vehicles were shown in the message form as well as in the charge-sheet. That, involvement of the vehicle was not proved. That, opponent No.1 has also supported the contents of this opponent regarding non-involvement of the vehicle. That, no liability of this opponent can be fastened by the Tribunal. Hence, it was requested by this opponent to dismiss the claim petition. 2.4 The learned Tribunal, after recording the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues vide Exhibit 49 on 23rd November, 2005. That, no liability of this opponent can be fastened by the Tribunal. Hence, it was requested by this opponent to dismiss the claim petition. 2.4 The learned Tribunal, after recording the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues vide Exhibit 49 on 23rd November, 2005. After recording the evidence of the parties, learned Tribunal was pleased to partly allow the claim petition preferred by the applicant by its judgment and decree dated 20th September, 2007 awarding compensation of Rs.3,27,400/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 2.5 The present appellant, being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal, has preferred this appeal. 3. Heard Mr.Dakshesh Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Harshdray A. Dave, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 - original applicant, Mr.Hiren M. Modi, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that applicant has wrongly involved the motor vehicle, bearing Registration No.GJ-6-U-6282. That, in fact no such motor vehicle was involved in the accident as alleged by the applicant. That, the message form as well as charge-sheet are clearly showing that the applicant was either standing on the road and waiting for a vehicle or was sitting in vehicle, bearing Registration No.GJ-6-U-6282 at that time another vehicle came from the Padra side and dashed with the motor vehicle, bearing Registration No.GJ-6-U-6282. The applicant fell down from the vehicle and received injuries to her left hand. It was further submitted that the opponent No.1 was also appeared before the Tribunal and has also filed his written statement denying the involvement of the motor vehicle. That, this opponent was also examined before the Tribunal on oath and has denied the involvement of his motor vehicle, bearing Registration No.GJ-6-U-6282. That, it was the duty of the applicant to prove the involvement of the vehicle while claiming the compensation. That, the applicant clearly failed to prove the involvement of the motor vehicle as alleged and sustaining injuries. That, no other evidence was produced by the applicant. That, it was the duty of the applicant to prove the involvement of the vehicle while claiming the compensation. That, the applicant clearly failed to prove the involvement of the motor vehicle as alleged and sustaining injuries. That, no other evidence was produced by the applicant. That, holding the liability of the present appellant by the Tribunal in absence of proving the involvement of the vehicle by the applicant is contrary to law and hence, it was requested by learned counsel for the appellant to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 20th September, 2007. 5. From the otherside, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 – original claimant supported the findings arrived at by the Tribunal and argued that Motor Vehicles Act itself is a beneficial law. That, involvement of the motor vehicle was clearly proved by the applicant. That, mere one figure of registration number was shown differently by the police authority would not discard the facts of the applicant in such a case. That, liberal view would require to be taken in such a case who had sustained severe injuries in a motor vehicular accident. That, Tribunal has rightly concluded by giving detailed reasons in para 10 of the judgment and this Court may not disturb the findings arrived at by the Tribunal. Learned counsel further requested to dismiss the appeal considering the facts of the case. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 – owner of the motor vehicle supported the arguments advanced by the appellant and submitted that opponent No.1 has filed his written statement before the Tribunal and has completely denied the involvement of his motor vehicle. That, he has also deposed before the Tribunal on oath denying his involvement in the accident. That, Tribunal has not considered the evidence of the opponent No.1 while passing the impugned award in favour of the applicant. Hence, by supporting the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, he has requested to pass necessary orders. 7. Having perused the record of the Tribunal, submissions made by learned counsels for the respective parties, as there is a serious question of involvement of the motor vehicle, let we refer the first document i.e. message form produced on record vide Exhibit 62. 7. Having perused the record of the Tribunal, submissions made by learned counsels for the respective parties, as there is a serious question of involvement of the motor vehicle, let we refer the first document i.e. message form produced on record vide Exhibit 62. As per the contents of this document, one stranger tempo dashed with the applicant when she was waiting for a vehicle near Mahuvad Chowkdi, at about 11:30 in morning, she came at the place of accident in a motor vehicle, bearing Registration No.GJ-6-U-6282 from Gambhira. Her husband has taken her for treatment in Hospital. No FIR was produced on record before the Tribunal. Panchanama of the scene of the offence was drawn and produced vide Exhibit 63. In the Panchnama, no motor vehicle was found. The charge-sheet was produced vide Exhibit 64 after completing the investigation against the opponent No.1 – driver of the motor vehicle tempo, bearing Registration No.GJ-6-W-6482. As per the contents of the document Exhibit 64, on 26th October, 1998, at about 11:30, near Mahuvad Narmada Canal, opponent No.1 drove his tempo, bearing Registration No.GJ-6- W-6482, rashly and negligently and dashed with the stranger tempo and a person sitting in his tempo fell down from the vehicle and sustained injuries on left hand. The applicant has produced the injury certificate vide Exhibit 54 wherein history of the applicant was recorded by the Doctor. As per the history, she had sustained an injury in a motor vehicular accident. As per the diagnosis total traumatic amputation of left V/3 arm was found. That, from 26.10.1998 to 18.11.1998, she was treated as an indoor patient. 8. The applicant in her affidavit of chief examination Exhibit 50 has stated that while she was waiting for vehicle in a correct side of the road at village Mahuvad, one tempo, bearing Registration No.GJ-6-W-6482 came in wrong side, driven by its driver rashly and negligently and dashed with the applicant. She sustained severe injuries on her left hand and was immediately admitted in the SSG Hospital. She was operated and her left hand was removed. That, in detail she has filed her chief examination. No cross examination by the opponent No.1 was carried out of this applicant. She sustained severe injuries on her left hand and was immediately admitted in the SSG Hospital. She was operated and her left hand was removed. That, in detail she has filed her chief examination. No cross examination by the opponent No.1 was carried out of this applicant. In the cross examination made by learned counsel for the insurance company, she has denied that the accident was occurred from the motor vehicle wherein one stranger driver of the tempo dashed to her. 9. True that there is some deviation in the message form as well as in the charge-sheet in connection with the manner of the accident and affidavit of the applicant whether she was sitting in the tempo, bearing Registration No.GJ-6-W-6482 or some stranger vehicle i.e. tempo came and dashed to her. Undisputedly, the fact remains that in a motor vehicular accident she had sustained injuries on left hand, which resulted into amputation of her left hand. Considering the facts of this case, after passing of 22 years from the date of the accident, the statement of the applicant cannot be denied to be accepted. It is admitted that the amount of award is deposited by the present appellant before the Tribunal. The findings arrived at by the Tribunal particularly as made in para 10 of the judgment would not be disturbed considering the peculiar facts of the case. 10. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed. 11. The impugned judgment and award dated 20th September, 2007 passed by the Tribunal in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.268 of 1999 is hereby confirmed. This would not be treated as precedent in any other case. 12. For withdrawal of the amount deposited by the appellant, the claimant may request the Tribunal and Tribunal would decide the prayer of the claimant. 13. R & P be sent back to the Tribunal by the Registry forthwith.